Chandrakant S/O Raghavrao Patil and 2 Others Vs Prachi W/O Chandrakant Patil

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 961/2022

¶4

1. Shri Chandrakant S/o Raghavrao Patil, aged about 36 years Occ. Service,

¶5

2. Shri Raghavrao s/o. Shivaji Patil, aged about 73 years, Occ. Retired.

¶6

3. Sau. Sunita w/o Raghavrao Patil, aged about 57 years, Occ. Housewife,

¶7

All resident of Plot Nos. 51, F.C.I.Co-
Operative Housing Society, Plot No.,
near Dhok Hospital, Narendra Nagar
Extension, Nagpur.

¶8

….. APPLICANTS/

¶9

(ORI.NON-APPLICANT NOS. 1 TO 3)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Sau. Prachi w/o. Chandrakant
Patil, aged about 31 years, Occ.
Housewife, R/o. C/o.
Shri Bhimrao Kamble House,
Nagari Bank Colony, near
Rambabai School, Wardha,
Dist. Wardha.

¶12

 …..NON-APPLICANT/

¶13

(ORI. COMPLAINANT)

¶14

_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Y. Sonkusare, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. D. U. Thakre, Advocate for non-applicant.

¶15

2

¶16

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI, J.

¶17

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06.10.2022.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

Heard.

¶20

2. Admit .

¶21

3.This is an application in terms of Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (‘Code’) filed by the husband and in-laws of non-
applicant (wife) raising a challenge to the maintainability of the
proceeding filed by the wife in terms of section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘D.V. Act’). Besides technical
objections, the challenge is on the ground that the contents of D. V.
application are totally false. The non-applicant/wife (complainant)
never lived in the shared household for considerable period. The
applicant took me through several annexures in a bid to falsify the
allegations leveled by non-applicant (complainant).

¶22

4.The non-applicant (wife) resisted the application by
contending that, at this initial stage, the Magistrate has to prima facie
examine the contents of application and not to see its truthfulness or
falsehood. Yet the evidence is to be led and parties are to be cross-
examined, therefore, it is a matter of trial to find out the worth of
allegations levelled in the application.

¶23

3

¶24

5.The learned counsel appearing for applicant raises a
preliminary objection to the maintainability on the ground that
application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not in prescribed
Form II in terms of Rule 6 of the Protection of Women’s from Domestic
Violence Rules, 2006 (‘D. V. Rules, 2006’). Rule 6 provides that
aggrieved persons shall file application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act
in Form II as nearly as possible thereto. It means that if the necessary
requirements have been incorporated in the application, it amounts to
compliance. The application prima facie discloses essential ingredients
as well as no specific deficiency has been pointed and therefore, the
objection is not tenable. Secondly, it is contended that there is non-
compliance of Sub-rule 4 to Rule 6 of D. V. Rules 2006 which requires
an affidavit in Form No. III. The other side has pointed that said
requirement is for claiming interim relief, and thus, the said objection
equally cannot be entertained for quashing entire proceeding.

¶25

6.With the assistance of both sides, I have gone through the
contains of application filed under Section 12 of the D. V. Act. The
couple got married on 30.08.2021. The husband is serving as a Branch
Manager in Nationalize Bank at Nashik. It is the wife’s case that soon-
after the marriage, she lived at her matrimonial house at Nagpur for 4
to 5 days and then the couple went for honeymoon on 05.09.2021. It

¶26

4

¶27

is her case that on third day of the marriage, the husband said that he
dislikes her and asked for divorce. There are allegations that the
husband has physically as well as mentally harassed her. It is stated
that she was also harassed on their visit to Leh Ladakh where the
husband has also tried to push her from mountain and thus, she was
very much scared. The wife has stated several unpleasant instances
which occurred during honeymoon. She has also narrated other
instances as to how the husband used to taunt and humiliate her. She
stated about the monetary demand raised by husband.

¶28

7.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would
submit that the wife’s contention regarding his dislike and demand of
divorce is false. In this regard, he has attracted my attention to
WhatsApp chat dated 21.07.2021 (page 73) to indicate that prior to the
marriage, husband has taken her approval while choosing wardrobe.
In this regard, it is submitted that it is hardly possible to express dislike
within three days. On that count, it is submitted that the relations were
smooth, therefore subsequent allegations about harassment within
three days are not probable.

¶29

8.The wife alleges that only due to persuasion by relatives,
both went on honeymoon on 05.09.2021. In order to impeach said
allegation, my attention has been invited to WhatsApp Chat (Page Nos.

¶30

5

¶31

41 to 42) to impress that since prior to the marriage, husband has
planned for honeymoon, therefore it is false that only due to persuasion
of relatives, they went on honeymoon. The applicant also took me
through some photographs (page Nos. 60, 61, 62) to state that the
couple was very much happy and enjoying the trip, therefore, the
allegations made during honeymoon period are false. While denying
the allegation of demand for motorcycle and cash amount, it has been
submitted that the husband was already having bike (receipt Page No.
81) and therefore, the said allegation is false.

¶32

9.The entire endevour of applicant was to show from
WhatsApp communication, photographs and receipt is to falsify the
allegations about harassment. There are variety of angles to look into
the matter. There may be prior communication between the couple,
however it does mean that whatever the wife alleges is totally false. It
is matter of evidence rather a defence to find out the worth of the
allegations levelled in the application. The wife has detailed in her
application several instances of which some have been disputed by
showing the communication. It is not a case that the application is
bereft of allegations against husband. Therefore, no case is made ouit
against husband to quash the proceeding at initial stage.

¶33

6

¶34

10.So far as the allegations against parents-in-law are

¶35

concerned, one has to see sequence of events. The marriage took place
on 30.08.2021. After marriage, the couple lived at matrimonial house

¶36

at Nagpur barely for 4 to 5 days and went for honeymoon on
05.09.2021. The couple returned from honeymoon on 10.09.2021 and
within two days, the wife returned to her parents at Wardha. As per
non-applicant’s case, for initial four days and then for next two days,
only she lived with her parents-in-law at Nagpur. In that context, the
application is examined to see the allegations levelled against parents-
in-law.

¶37

11. It is alleged that during initial four days when her husband
used to abuse and humiliate her, the parents-in-law remained silent
and used to laugh. The second incident is dated 13.09.2021, when the
wife left her husband’s house due to alleged harassment. She stated
that on that day, husband has forcefully asked her to leave their house.
It was happened in presence of her parents-in-law who instigated their
son to drive her and thrown her bag. The third incident pertains to
telephonic talk while the wife was living at her maternal house. It is
stated that when the wife has telephoned to her parents-in-law, by
suspecting her character they abused.

¶38

7

¶39

12.It reveals that that the total stay of wife in shared

¶40

household was for initial four days and then two days only. There are
no specific allegations that during said period either parents-in-law
have directly humiliated, abused or caused physical hurt. What the
non-applicant conveyed is that, when the husband harassed her, they
remained as a silent spectator. So far as the third instance is
concerned, notably, they did not call her but in response to her phone
call, they made certain allegations. These isolated references are not
sufficient to haul them in the proceeding under the D. V. Act.

¶41

13.Essentially, the entire application specifies a long story of
domestic violence committed by her husband only. Prima facie, there
are allegations against husband making out a case to proceed further.
Truthfulness of the allegations is a matter of trial. On the basis of some
material brought in defence, at this stage one cannot prejudge that the
allegations are false since it is for the Magistrate to decide the same
during trial. However, the entire application nowhere makes out
sufficient material to construe a case for proceeding against parents-in-
law. In view of that, application is partly allowed. The application filed
by wife under Section 12 of the D. V. Act is quashed and set aside as
regards to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. parents-in-law only. Proceeding
shall continue against applicant No. 1 i.e. husband.

¶42

8

¶43

14. Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶44

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶45

Gohane

¶46

Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE
GOHANE Date:
2022.10.10
18:11:00
+0530

Chandrakant S/O Raghavrao Patil and 2 Others v. Prachi W/O Chandrakant Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant S/O Raghavrao Patil and 2 Others v. Prachi W/O Chandrakant Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu S/O Mahesh Shukla Vs Mrs. Gayatri W/O Himanshu Shukla

Kanchan W/O Gautam Kamble Vs the State Ofmah. Thr. Pso Ps Ajani Nagpur

Wazir Shah S/O Kasam Shah Vs Sheikh Mustaque Sheikh Isa

Roshan Omprakash Nagarkar and 2 Others Vs Reena Vaibhav Nagarkar

Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd., Thr. Director Gopaal Brindaban Agarrwal and Others Vs Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Thr. Its Director Rajendrakumar S/O Shivkishanji Agarwal

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs Kaushik Udyog Limited Thr. Its Director Mukesh Omprakashji Agrawal